Gaius Florius Lupus wrote:Seneca's research should not simply be ignored. It is actually the definite scholarly answer to our debate. If this motion does not pass with majority, then all the options that Seneca found out should be considered.Therefore ANTIQUO does not mean a vote for "collega", it simply means a rejection to the motion to adopt "collegiarius".

... Actually, it does mean a vote for "collega", see above proposed vote post. That said, I would not be apposed to cosidering Seneca's list.

Rarity of surviving examples is of course not only a necessary, but even a sufficient indicator of rarity of its use. What else would be an indicator? This is a basic principle of inductive reasoning, i.e. the scientific method.

... Really Lupus, this is a cheep shot, unworthy of you. You also must consider why so many things from the Classical Period didn't survive (e.g. CDR details). And also, by whose purpose did those things that did survive come down to us (authoritative suppression of information). There is at this time even more being learned about antiquity that the texts that were accepted in our school-days have been superseded by these new discoveries. Would you have us write-off words because they came from the region of Africa and not the stylus of Cicero? We are not trying to forge a document that would pass as if it were unearthed from antiquity (we would have done better if Adamas had provided the translation in Greek). Anyone actively writing in Latin today is faced with needing Latin words that are not in the OLD. Rarity does not mean that there isn't more, it may just be the 'tip of the iceburg'.

Vale

'To live, indeed, is not in our power; but to live rightly is.' Quintus Sextius

Perhaps for the sake of expediency we could dispense with formalities for the moment, and recognize the emergent consensus? I've already stated that I like the term socius, Horatia Adamas has also stated that she is "perfectly happy with 'socius / socia,'" C. Aurelianus has likewise expressed his favour, and both P. Laevus and C. Florius are open to the possibility.

If the latter two gentlemen could share their opinions on "socius," we may have this matter settled! Let's not allow the work we've done to be stymied by technicalities!

Valete.

P. S. If we insist on slavish formalism, I would be happy to move that we suspend the rules of procedure if that would make everyone more comfortable.

Unfortunately, this communication method lacks the nice polling system available on Yahoo lists, so we cannot list a poll stating that one may vote for any of several possible responses, and then go with the plurality thereof. There is no way to provide multiple choices at once, such as a. 'collegiarius,' b. 'collega' c. 'socius,' d. 'sodalis.' Of these, a. is the most precise, and c. is satisfactory and more common.

As Laevus noted, there is nothing wrong with African origin of words, or of authors (there is this fellow Terence the African, who wrote quite well although Latin was not his native tongue). There also is nothing wrong with neologism, which, whether or not Tertullian indulged therein, is no crime, nor was he the first to do so. This fellow Cicero brought many new words into Latin, and greatly enriched the native Latin vocabulary. We also have added many Latin words--unless of course one prefers idiotic circumlocutions for 'cell phone,' 'computer' 'automobile,' 'camera,' etc., etc., which the Romans did not have. They did not shy away from importing words any more than do English speakers, who also willingly contribute words to other languages. I was somewhat surprised to find that Spanish has adopted the word 'test,' and has not even added any of the typical Spanish word endings to this borrowing from English. Things are like that in languages these days…and probably in those days as well.

Laevus also pointed out that the rarity of a word does not indicate that it was rarely used, or much of anything else. Indeed there may well have been deliberate suppression of vocabulary and authors as the regimes and attitudes changed; Sappho's works, and others, were suppressed. In our time, one does not have to look far to see that certain parties are so incensed by the Confederate monuments in the U.S. south that they want all of them removed. History should be erased because parts of it are unpleasant to some groups, or so they think. Over in the Muddle East, ancient temples and ancient statues are blown up because certain parties think they are sacrilegious or whatever. Add losses by fire, flood, and many other means, so that we have lost immense amounts of ancient literature. Entire books of Livy and Tacitus did not survive, nor were they alone in suffering near or even total extinction. There are authors known to us only by name, sometimes with the names of their works, but little or nothing else. Of Sophokles' hundred or so plays, we have seven. Seven remain of Aischylos, too. Euripides was more popular later on, so we have more of his, but almost certainly not his entire output. We have only part of Aristotle's Poetics although he was revered, and on it goes. Absence of evidence does not correlate with evidence of absence. For all we know, 'collegiarius' was a common near-synonym of 'socius,' with a more restricted meaning--but we don't have the texts to prove it. We do, however, have at least one inscription with this word, so evidently it did exist, and had a suitable meaning.

I can agree with socius, which is one of the words that Seneca found. The procedures have been skipped once, they can be skipped a second time.

Regarding the vote it would indeed be nice to have a better system for polls like in Yahoo. I know that this message board allows for something like that, but we have no access to it. I complained already about it in a public post.

ANTIQVO can formally never be interpreted as a vote for something. It is only a vote against something, for maintaining the current status quo. This is what uti rogas and antiquo mean, supporting the motion of the rogator or opposing it. I am aware that the post calling for vote stated it differently, but it was formally incorrect, because the collegium has no Latin bylaws yet and either version would be a change to the status quo.

****

We have no other indicator for the frequency of a word than the number of examples of this word in the available sources. History is an empirical science. The frequency in a representative sample can be assumed to be proportional to the frequency in the total. And the sample size of classical Latin texts is is comparably big. We have no non-empirical source of knowledge about the frequency of the use of a word in the past. Therefore there is no other possible indicator. Or should we take someone's "gut feeling" as evidence?The word "collegius" is politically neutral. It is absurd to suppose a suppression of the word or damnatio memoriae based on political or religious grounds.

This is the Collegium Philosophicum and apart from all linguistic enthusiasm. we have to keep in mind proper methodology, which is one of the main subjects of philosophy (epistemology). This includes scientific methodology, which is based on inductive logic. It is therefore important to be able to distinguish what weakens and what strengthens a hypothesis. What strengthens it, is called an indicator. Each example of a word in a classical source is an indicator of its frequency, the only empirical indicators we have. How can one then reject a hypothesis, that has far more indicators and accept one that has fewer?

Just for the record:The motion to establish the word "collegiarius" for members of the Collegium has failed to get the necessary support within the time set for the vote (until last Tuesday).The compromise to adopt the word "socius" was made, seconded and supported by four members of the Collegium. Is there a formal opposition against the use of "socius", so that we need a new vote? Or can we all live with this compromise? If nobody speaks out against it, I would suggest to use "socius - socii" in the bylaws. The choice raises the question of the single -i and double -ii genitive again. Do we need a vote about it?

Esto ratio et propositum huius collegi ut locum quaestionibus philosophicis disceptandis praebeat atque institutionem de scholis philosophicis classicis, praecipue de illis Platonis, Epicuri, et disciplinae Stoicae propaget.[The motive and purpose of this Collegium shall be that it provides a place for discussing philosophical questions and also to disseminate instruction concerning the classical schools of philosophy, especially about those of Plato, Epicurus, and the Stoic system.]

Socius utri magistro approbandus est. [An member shall be approved by either of the two Magistri.]

Omnes socii, qui cives optimo iure sunt, suffragium habento. [All members who are citizens optimo iure have the right to vote.]

Regimen

Habento duo magistri collegialiter magisterium collegi et invicem vetanto. Sunto primi inter pares; pro collegio loquuntor, deliberationes collegio praeponunto; decernunto suffragia irrita esse, nam magistri moderatores fori Collegi Philosophici sunt. [Two Magistri shall hold the office of magister of the Collegium, and shall have the right to veto one another. They shall be first among equals; they shall speak on behalf of the Collegium; they shall put deliberations before the Collegium; they shall determine whether votes are invalid, for the Magisters are the moderators of the Forum of the Collegium Philosophicum.]

Suffragiis in aequo stantibus, e moribus maiorum rem vel candidatum cecidisse decernitor. [If the votes are tied, in accordance with the mos maiorum, the matter or candidate shall be considered to have failed.]

Magistri maiori parti eligendi sunt unum annum qui Kalendis Ianuariis incipit. [The Magistri shall be elected by the majority for one year beginning on the Kalends of January.]

Si ambo munera simul vacant, unus quisque suffragator collegium convocare et comitia habere potest.[If both offices are vacant at the same time, any voter can convoke the Collegium and hold elections.]

Si collegium et magistris et suffragatoribus careat, Aedili Curuli traditor ut status reficiatur.[If the Collegium lacks both Magistri and voters, it shall be handed over to the Curule Aedile so that its status might be restored.]

Convocationes

Liceto utri magistro collegium convocare, quae convocatio illi una quidem septimana antea annuntianda est. [Each Magister may convene the Collegium, which convocation must be announced by him at least one week in advance.]

Liceto unicuique socio collegium convocare nisi utri magistro displiceat.[It shall be permitted to each and every associate to summon the Collegium unless this does not suit either Magister.]

Ob nefas contra rationes constitutionemve collegi, vel morem maiorum pars dodrans suffragiorum socium expellere potest. [For violations of the principles or the constitution of the Collegium or the mos maiorum three quarters of the votes can expel a colleague.]

Collegium cunctis sociis consentientibus dissolvi potest. Si collegium sic dissolvatur, denarii sui Aerario Populi Romani dantor.[The Collegium may be dissolved if all members agree. If the Collegium is dissolved in this fashion, its denarii shall be given to the treasury of the Roman People.]